Jimquisition: Dumbing Down for the Filthy Casuals Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 30 NEXT | |
Fucking casuals grabbing the sword! There shouldn't even BE a sword in Zelda, god damn casuals dumbed the game down! More like god damn "hardcorez" gamers forgetting that they CAN do things like this. Another example, OH NOEZ LITTLEBIGPLANET ADDED INFINITE RESPAWN CHECKPOINTS, DUMBED DOWN DUMBED DOWN!!!! Hey idiots, you do know you can always quit back to the pod and restart the entire level from the start if you still WANT that challenge in your game, right? Nobody is forcing you to respawn infinitely, you're choosing to and then bitching about something YOU chose to do. As much as I hated hearing about Nuzlocke runs in Pokemon for a while when it became popular, at least the Pokemon community was intelligent enough to find more challenge in their game since that's what they wanted. And that's supposed to be a "kiddie" game according to teh hardcorez. I guess the kiddies are smarter than you, hardcorez gamers! What are you going to do about it? ... Bitch some more? K. | |
This video honestly made me frustrated. Not because I'm against an easy mode in video games or I'm against casual players but because I am subscribed to a guy on Youtube named Epic Name Bro who already talked about this and he did it a lot better than you as far as the idea of an easy mode in Dark Souls. I'll paraphrase a little bit from him, the idea worried him because of a few problems it might cause for the overall game. First off would be the issue with multiplayer and balancing. Would someone who played the game on the new easy mode and someone who played on the harder difficulty get the same type of gear? If they did then it would be somewhat unfair to the player on the harder difficulty as they are higher skilled and completed a more impressive feat but at the same time the casual player paid the same amount of money so would they not be entitled to balanced multiplayer? From Software could always just take the multiplayer out but that would be a shame as the multiplayer in the souls series is really unique and pretty damn fun. | |
your implying that other people will care about whatyou think about how dark souls works and this is why jim is right no one gives a damn about you playing through the game the way you played, NO ONE no one cares | |
See what I mean? Right here^ "People just shouldn't care that much about games" Is a terrible argument. Saying "people don't give a crap" and declaring victory is an amazing display of childishness. This immaturity is nothing the community needs if its what we are gonna get if easy mode goes in. | |
Ok I am not saying that I should dictate how people play or that new people shouldn't start gaming cause I am all for that I am saying they are not going to get a good impression of games we all think are awesome if you start ripping out what made us all love the games in the first place like the difficulty in Dark souls. If you start doing that then you are going to put people off gaming. | |
to do what you said, a video game would have to take the hard mode out so i think your going need because if you leave a franchise because other people can play it now | |
Well said Jim, well said.
This in particular. "There is the "Option" to do it easy? WAAAAA RUINING MY HARDCORE EXPERIENCE!" You know I never see Bayonetta mentioned in any of these difficulty discussions, it really does deserve bringing up. Bayonetta on the harder modes is a challenge enthusiasts dream come true. Bayonetta on super easy mode is easy enough for "filthy casuals" like me. The latter doesn't "destroy" or lessen the former. | |
Well made video Jim, and very good points. One of the things I find interesting is that gamers mostly do not want to be patronized about their hobby, but tend to alienate those who don't fit into the elitist status of the hardcore. Take this comic on Dorkly for example (http://www.dorkly.com/comic/46874/female-fantasy-iii). It's along the same mentality. "I want someone to indulge and accept my hobby, but you /obviously/ don't know your stuff, so why are you wasting my time?" (Yes, a bit of a gross generalization, but if you strip it to the core concept, they relate). If the casual gamer wants to ease into these more hardcore games, why not give them stepping stools? They could ease up to where they could be on the same level as other gamers, but they aren't going to start there. Along with that, many of us who frequent gaming sites and play such games have been playing video games since we were young, or more frequently than others. To say that a brand new gamer should "play at our level" is not only off-putting for a new person, but simply a negative thing for the view of gamers themselves. It helps keep the potential for acceptance at a distance. Now should every single game out there have difficulty settings? No, but if they include the option, or options to help the player out (such as the features Jim pointed out for the NSMB games), then it's fine as they are just that: options. The Easy Mode outcry would have been 100% justifiable if it was the only difficulty that they were patching in, but instead they were giving new, curious players something that they could step into the Dark Souls world and experience it. Also, if that player played on easy and became better, they could amp it up to hard. This could provide the player a great comparison of how they've grown in skill as a video game player, and further encourage them to play harder games. I've seen where the concern is that, nowadays, Hard and Very Hard are now too easy. A valid concern to have. But maybe it's that system that needs to be tweaked. I know early games had 3 settings (sometimes only 2!): This could also be a bad thing where a person on easy gains some form of competitive edge in multiplayer than a person on hard. There are ways around it, but developers should be mindful of this should such a situation like this could exist in their game. These days I like having the option for the fact that I have so many games I want to play that I don't have the time to play them on a harder difficulty (like I used to do). The easier difficulties allow me to experience the content without spending too much time stuck in certain areas. So many games, so little time. Lastly, more players means more sales, which can mean sequels to your favorite games. Video games are a business, after all. So in short, we shouldn't have every single game with this option and finding a good balance when having the options will be difficult, but by giving more players the ability to work up to the "elite" level, we gain more people that we can share our passion with. Outside of the few bad seeds we'll get with it, I'm ok with that. :) Thanks for reading my rant on this! | |
You make some sense but there is the trend in games that hurt themselves by dumbing down WAY too much case in point ff 13. The first 3 hours you can win all the fights simply by pressing one button and have no exploration or danger of getting lost. Oh trust me, the challenge and exploration is eventually there for those who want it in alot of the later marks that will have you swearing at the screen but you have to slog through SO much handholding before you get to the challenging bits. | |
I clearly heard him say in the video that he didn't play it. And way to generalize yourself there, pal. It's not about not wanting "filthy casuals" to play the game, it's about taking away the uncompromizing nature of the game. | |
No a easy mode would ruin Dark Soul's, what's the point in trying your hardest when you can just skip it down to easy and roll through it? And it doesn't encourage gamers to become better players by constantly handing them an easy out, for scrubs. | |
Oh I do think the developers care about their intended experience. And this is why they didn't add an easy mode to dark souls. AND THIS IS WHY JIM IS WROOOOOOOOOONG! Do I win the internet argument now, or what? EPIC BURN, SEE YA! | |
The way I see it, games have gotten easier over time for two main reasons: 1) You've gotten better at them. Having played almost every Zelda game, being able to read the environments and enemy patterns has become virtually second nature to me. But hand the controller to somebody who hasn't played them and they'll have a tricky time. It's like Usain Bolt complaining that the race he was in was too easy; well of course it was because he's the best at running. 2) Games were harder back in the day because it was the only way to keep you playing. The limited memory available on old consoles meant the games couldn't be too massive, so in order to pad out the gameplay the games were made nigh on impossible to beat. Now we have infinitely more space to work with than we did, so games can provide more actual content instead of just beating us to death with their difficulty. | |
I can relate to this from both sides: My favourite game series is the Jak and Daxter series. There is a mission in Jak 2 where you have to run a constant gauntlet of enemies on narrow walkways with insta-death if you fell off. No healthkits no checkpoints, hundreds of troops and dozens of gunships that can shoot you from miles away. It took me ages to get past that bit and it drove me nuts, though once I got there I *may* have done a little victory dance. If a games too easy people never get that feeling. However if a games too hard before you get invested (for example the above mission was roughly half way through) you'll just rage-quit and return the game. Bought a jrpg (forget the name) and the very first fucking enemy after leaving the starting city had me beat, I could not beat this mission no matter what I tried, I was dead inside a turn. Gave up and returned it (was a preowned copy so didn't lose much money) | |
I will disagree Jim, I don't think just because you payed for something there should be an easy-mode. I have two examples. In the past lets say star fox 64, there are two difficulties: Normal and Expert. I have never seen anyone ever complain about how star fox 64 or old n64 console games needed an easy mode. Now i know both difficulties are different from dark souls and star fox 64, but are they? Both are about recognizing patterns and understanding how to get from point A to point B(safely) and beating a boss(who may or may not kill you multiple times and you have to go back to the checkpoint). Now you made a point about literature(exploding words) or movies(pausing till a quiz is finished). Now here is my counter argument to this. Now if i bought a book written by Steven Hawkings or from someone who is difficult to understand, can i beg the author to write it in an easier way for me to read? The answer is no and never. Just because someone purchases something does not entitle someone to easy-mode. Consumers need to be educated on what they are buying. They are entitled to the product and it's content, but if they didn't know what they were buying in the first place then they deserve to feel bad. Taking the difficulty out of dark souls would cause the game to lose it's appeal. The game wasn't catered to casuals or easy-moders. Let the hardcore crowd have their game. | |
Wow.. you went there, and not only made "hardcore" gamers complaining seem silly, you made opposition to gay marriage seem just as trivial... Nice. | |
I'm just saying that it's tearing out a key component of the game. | |
It isn't "easy modes" that should be getting people up-in-arms. It's what they've done in NSMBU that should be getting this attention. If they want to give you the option to make the game insultingly easy, that's one thing. But letting the game play itself while you watch completely defeats the purpose. Someone who partakes of that option isn't allowing them access to content they might otherwise have been denied, they are simply denying themselves content to give themselves the illusion of progress. It's the completely wrong way to go about it, and this is a blatant example of what happens when you dumb down content to make it "accessible." It'd be like watching a scary movie, and having a warning appear in the corner before every scare, or a mystery novel telling you to skip to the end. This is the real threat, because it doesn't make games accessible, it destroys what makes them games in the first place. | |
OMG! I am literally about to rip out my hair, the ignorance in this thread is just amazing. Dark Souls isn't hard because the enemies have too high health or do too much damage, it's not because you do too little damage nor is it difficult because of too low health. It's difficult because of LEVEL FUCKING DESIGN. In Dark Souls the levels are crafted to be difficult, but possible, in easy mode they would have to change this to be, not difficult and possible. In Dark Souls there are parts where even with more health and damage, it would still be brutually difficult because it has careful placing of enemies spots, traps, and overall just where things are placed. They would have to redesign all enemies and levels to be easy enough for a casual player to do it. Trying to then apply that to the normal mode it would be way to easy. What allows the quality of the levels to be as good as they're is that they don't have to worry about designing it for multiple difficulties. Games with multiple difficulties usually don't have levels that are built for any specific difficulty but built for ALL difficulties. That's what makes Dark Soul's unique, it's built from the ground up to be hard, so it's all possible, and difficult at the same time. Enemies don't have a lot of health (some do, but mostly optional enemies), but are placed in the right spots to make it difficult. The Souls series rewards CAREFUL PLAY and not Reckless play. Apparently people don't understand this and think it's all about Health and Damage when it's not. Bosses usually don't even have that much health, but they all have staredgy's on how to easily beat them. So yes, Easy Mode would dumb it down by making the levels having to account for both difficulties. Same for bosses and enemies. This is why fans of the Dark Souls series don't want multiple difficulties because it WOULD suffer. | |
I have seen the future of reality television and it is hosted by mutant carrot men! OT: Personally when i play games i usually play them on easy, because i like to play games to hear the story and have some fun interaction along the way, but i must say that my favorite games are the ones which don't give you a choice of difficulty like TF2 or KOTOR. I think the goal of a developers shouldn't be to make a game that only the best can beat or so easy that any lobotomized howler monkey can beat, but a game that has been made so well that the developers know by the time you reach a certain part in the story you're ready for whatever they throw at you, or a game that can scale itself to the level that the player seems to be at. A game that can scale back for a newb or ramp up for the 1337. | |
I honestly don't really consider it as such. The difficulty seems complimentary more than anything, like bad controls in Silent Hill. It serves it's purpose, but I don't think the game would be directionless if it was less hard. But then again, I think of the game much differently than others, it seems... | |
KOTOR actually does. If you go into the options menu, you can adjust combat difficulty. By default it is set to medium, but it also has easy and hard modes as well. :P | |
I'm pretty sure Hideki Miyazaki and the rest of the team behind Dark Souls aren't "some random guy on the internet."
http://metro.co.uk/2012/08/29/dark-souls-interview-hard-master-556118/
http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/716777/dark-souls-an-interview-with-hidetaka-miyazaki/ We're talking authorial intent here. This isn't just my opinion. | |
If you're not going to read my posts then don't quote me.
That does not follow logically from anything that I said. It's also a silly argument. You might as well say "I like elephants so Dark Souls should have a trunk".
Mr. Sterling's attitude on this topic is the very definition of absolutist. "I know everything about how every game should be, I have nothing new to learn, I am not willing to consider an alternative view. There is an incredibly specific mindset and feature set that EVERY game should have, and if you disagree you're a cunt. Meah." You seem to be trying to cram having any opinion about how a particular game should be into the definition of "absolutist" so you can throw it back at me, but it's not working.
People like ponies, let's turn Dark Souls into a pony
That is factually incorrect. I'm sure what you mean is it shouldn't effect how we play, and I would probably agree with you in any other case.
Good for him, I don't begrudge him that. But he didn't play a game so much as listen to the soundtrack and look at the art book. He doesn't need an easy mode to accomplish that, as you have demonstrated.
I don't understand this viewpoint at all. Surely its merit as a work of art is one million times more important then the developer's intentions for its merit as a work of art?! Maybe I'm taking you too literally, here. But it's merit that counts, and that is what Dark Souls has in spades. It's a work of art with a message and themes and goals. People who see it as a mere product will never understand why those who are passionate about it hold certain opinions. I don't really care about it being "their decision" except to the extent it brings me a greater work of art. I think Dark Souls should not have easy mode because it undermines the game's artistic messages and themes, among other things. What you're doing is like saying Young Frankenstein should be colorized because people like color, and color is an obvious added value and utility. What you are ignoring is the artistic statement you can make by not having color, and the themes and goals that are supported and reaffirmed by that choice. The very fact of NOT having color is an artistic statement. The very fact of NOT having an easy mode is an artistic statement, in addition to the more practical reasons for excluding it. Jim Sterling, on the other hand, has been nothing short of AGGRESSIVE in demolishing the concept of games as art and judging them as products with a task to perform only. This is another perfect example. I don't think he realizes he is having that effect, however. He thinks he wants to view games as art but, like Yahtzee, he shrinks when actually given the chance to examine a game as if it were art. He just hasn't thought it completely through. Fill a game full of obnoxious, pretensions bullshit that resembles artsy things on a superficial level and they defend it to the death. Give them the real McCoy and they don't know what they're even looking at.
You are persistent in this straw man that I don't want easy mode because of how it effects OTHER people. You have ignored everything I have said about how it effects ME. We cannot have a meaningful discussion about this if you are unwilling to even hear my side. Obviously having another game that is just like all their other games would be wonderful for people who want an easy mode, but in this case I think it is only reasonable to keep the Dark Souls experience intact for the people who enjoy it as it is and can't get the same experience anywhere else. But I don't think this kind of game can survive in the long run. I will constantly be anticipating its ruin. Anything that is even slightly off the beaten path is hunted down and executed, as you can plainly see happening right here. How the fuck am I the bad guy in this? Easy mode lovers can play anything in the world. I wish they would play Dark Souls too, but if they can't, won't they at least leave it alone for my enjoyment? How come they get everything and I get nothing? That is not fair. Dark Souls fans: hated, feared, maligned, misunderstood. | |
Guys guys guys, can we please move the easy mode discussion away from "yes or no" and onto "how to implement it in ways other than the distinct, modal settings"? The worst thing to do for this subject is to give the impression that having Easy/Normal/Hard settings is the only way to do it. Because it's not. | |
Exactly. Look, I don't mind that any game has an easy mode, or a super easy mode, Also, another example of bad difficulty tweaking (or whatever it's called): That's why I find it terrible when games scale the challenge (or the difficulty mode) based on how you're dooing, they assume you want to succeed on the first try. (but I don't, I LIKE TO FAIL FIRST) Unfortunately for me, the games I play rarely offer a difficulty that I like. anyway, this has turned into a rant instead of a real comment. | |
I'm a big fan of this concept when it comes to RPGs because then people seem to equate "challenge" with "clunkiness." Never was this more apparent than with Dragon Age: Origins or Mass Effect 2. Yes, I remember the heady days when DA: O was being called "dumbed down Baldur's Gate" by people who obviously hadn't played Baldur's Gate in a decade...
They do release those. They're called "edited for TV versions." And much like with that, I fail to see how the existence of a completely optional setting hinders your enjoyment in the slightest. It's like complaining that PC games still include 640x480 settings despite you owning a bleeding-edge graphics machine. | |
I DO like the Easy mode in games... because I have friends who just can't finish the damn games I intro to them (SUX at Skill), with Easy mode... they can actually finish them and we can talk about them( and I can tell how the hard mode is) Take DmC3 as example, all we had to do is show our Super Dante around to prove that we finished "Dante must Die" mode, and we have the privilege to play using UNLIMITED POWER!~ it's a good balance, where all can finish the game, but there are extra contend (that one CAN LIVE WITH OUT) for the completionists, to OP the already mastered game!~ games SHOULD have that options good EP man~ | |
Thanks for beating me to the punch. If you wanna play a different way then intended(and be a beginner)....you get the motto. | |
Dark Souls main selling point was its difficulty. Its tagline was "PREPARE TO DIE" for chrissake. Putting in an Easy mode is the exact opposite of all of the marketing done for the game and undermines the series. I understand where Jim is coming from, and I agree it is silly to complain about, but when the game is marketed as being crotch-kickingly difficult, it becomes a nagging little reminder when oldfag gamers hear about companies pandering to newfag gamers that people want things handed to them, things which beforehand had to be worked toward and earned. Things which the oldfags worked for and earned, and the newfags just expect to be spoon-fed to them. Really, it's the fact that beating a Souls game actually meant something. You went through all of the cheap shit, all of the tough battles, all of the respawns and losing all of those Souls and Humanity and came out over Gwyn in the end, only to then have a bunch of people come in and blast right past you on Hand-Holding difficulty. It'd be like if you worked for years to afford a mildly acceptable car while the spoiled rich kid down the street is bitching that his new corvette that Daddy bought him isn't the right color. So of course they'd be a bit mad. A few with some rage issues. But it's not hard to understand. Has anyone added an easy mode to Ninja Gaidden yet? Because if I remember right, just Acolyte difficulty was practically every other Hack N' Slash's Hard Mode. Would people like all commands to be mapped to one button that just causes all enemies to spontaneously explode? No, because NG is supposed to be difficult. I haven't played the third one, someone told me that one was easy as hell. | |
And thank you for also understanding. God, I feel like aside from a few others I was one of the few sane people who actually get why no easy mode is a good thing. | |
Games are the only forms of entertainment that make you work for the content? Jim, you need to read more. Adding easy-modes to a game does diminish the entire product because it has a budget. People used the same argument in about the multiplayer in Mass Effect 3. "It doesn't hurt you." It does hurt me, because that money could've been spent elsewhere. | |
I'm glad you made this, also I must mention I hate it when they make something that was overcomplicated in a game more simple and practicle to improve gameplay in the sequel and people called it dumbing down, it isn't, it is making the game more fun and less of a chore to play through. | |
| Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 30 NEXT | |
So, people can't enjoy the game for reasons other than it's difficulty?
OT:
I agree with jim, and have argued as such on these forums before. About all I have to say about that...